In Thucydides' Melian Dialogue, Thucydides explains a debate between the Athenians and the Melians. The Athenians tell the Melians that they will either invade Melos and take everyone prisoner, provided the Melians don't fight back, or they will kill everyone in Melos. The Melians attempt to argue with the Athenians, and provide reasons why they should not do either of those things. They give a few different arguments. One argument is that Sparta is an ally of Melos, and Melos will call upon Sparta to save them from the Athenians. The Athenians are not convinced, and say that Sparta will not come to save them. Sparta will not waste their resources on Melos, as it would turn into a bigger mess for them than if they just let Melos go. The Melians argue that the Athenians should not enslave or kill them because they have not done anything to provoke the Athenians. It would not be right of Athens, and the other states around Athens will feel threatened if Athens invades. The Melians argue that this will cause the other states to go to war against Athens, to protect themselves. The Athenians main point throughout all of this is that they are mightier than Melos, and therefore have a right to do what they want.
The above cartoon illustrates this point that the Athenians made, a concept that Thucydides supported. This is the concept of "might is right." Calvin tries to make the point that ethics do not matter, that all that matters is who is mightier. He says, as Athens does, that he will leave it up to others to discuss whether it is right. Athens asserts that whether it is right is irrelevant, as they have more resources and are bigger.
I think one more reason that contributes to the Athenian's motivation to invade Milo was for Milian's own benefits. Because whatever responses Milo's made, Athenian would finally annex Milo, for the great divergence between their military ability. What the Athenian trying to say was that in order to protect your own civilian from meaningless deaths, you should say yes to our propose.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it's worthy for a state to sacrifice its own civilians' life for the pursuance of moral means, or it is better for the nation to endure with the immoral but peaceful "ends"?
If you believe in the phrase "give me liberty or give me death" then the answer is absolutely to sacrifice lives. I think that I do agree with that statement.
DeleteThe Melian dialogue is a great illustration of the period of imperialism. It looks like the cartoon is hinting at that period as well.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteEven though Athen's was stronger than Melos, Was it necessary for the Athenians do decimate the Melians on the scale that they did. Killing the men and enslaving the rest. Was this necessary to for Athens to maintain it's power?
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't necessary. But they wanted the island, so they took it.
DeleteNo, they were practicing Machiavellian principles. Its on a wants-needs basis not what is morally correct
DeleteThis is was good comparison over an interesting concept. I think that actions should be based on principals rather than wants. Even if Athens takes Melos as well as all the surrounding states, what happens when they themselves have a domestic conflict? Will they become divided to the point of a civil war? When you don't stand for something you fall for anything, which is the case when a nation acts out of immediate wants and not core principals. Athens may feel that their size and strength entitles them to act out in whatever manner they so desire, however in the long term this will in no way be sustainable. What do you think a nations actions should be based on both foreign and domestic? In addition, do you thing because a nation has the ability to do something and has the support of its citizens that it should always do it?
ReplyDelete